WPC VBH1OLOUE+WZ6yXō[bFTndWAεIL *ouЂ tK-R>#g^+u ih>tlo2m,/C\ϨdȞZd r$^ $BB~_)$6=/^0J'e=t@"}A~K.'b<V0 onzH4ubc[٥ǟm/'Y0}ƒBMޡAeS@Cz,o56̗ߞ0@6]t ʉ^i+Gj]xk\\hİSDpӝ#='X#U'N % 0Y U>F ^ w 4   m  1u 72[   1s 01c. . 0pw 0 0j b2 0LL 0 0D BHP LaserJet 4250 PCL 6 (Copy 2)0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,\  `&Times New Roman74 ڋ34onnie3|xU   3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)    e337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#Page of &($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#  E$..      X(XXXX(XXX( 4   1    _ThisoutlinewasbuiltontheworkofProfessorRobertCalhoun,GoldenGate  LawSchool,whogaveapresentationontheimpactofCrawfordattheJanuary2005  seminar.ThisupdatewaspreparedbyAlan_Siraco_,StaffAttorneyattheFirstDistrict  AppellateProjectwiththeassistanceoflawstudentJason_Stalinsky_.((3$ Y!..      XXX0XXXX0X   4   0  (#$  0   d !GXXUSUS.,  _TRX3'Avery 5160 AddressX3' Letter3'Avery 5160 Addressdress3'LetterTG  FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  TRAININGSEMINAR & January21,2006 L  UPDATEON V  CRAWFORDv.WASHINGTON f  DEVELOPMENTS     &v   X(X@@H H #XX(#CRAWFORDv.WASHINGTON  @@aa!ANUPDATEDOUTLINE   @@$January2006 D  #a#@@kk"TableofContents  d  ##G  I.TheCrawfordholding.............................................................................1   II.Standardsofreviewandprejudice........................................................1 +{  III.Waiverorforfeitureonappeal..............................................................2   IV.Unavailability...........................................................................................2 %u  V.Adequacyofpriorcrossexamination.....................................................2   VI.Relatederrors..........................................................................................2 o VII.Whatisconsidered testimonialhearsay?.........................................2  VIII.Priortestimony........................................................................................3 i IX.Statementstopoliceofficers...................................................................3  X.Statementstonongovernmentalindividuals.......................................8 c XI.Whatdocumentsmaybe testimonial?...............................................11  XII.Statementswhicharenothearsay,ornotadmittedtoprovethetruth.12  ] XIII.Hearsayexceptions..................................................................................13  XIV.NoSixthAmendmentissuewhenthe_declarant_Ԁtestifies......................18  W! XV.CrawfordnotapplicableinproceedingsinwhichtheSixth !#   Amendmentdoesnotapply...................................................................19 #Q% XVI.Retroactivity.............................................................................................22 ~$'  #G#  (E$- X(X  8(XXdd8TABLEOFAUTHORITIES     FEDERALCASES      2!XBarberv.Page(1968) p  X 442!2!390U.S.7191!1!F!.T T 20 \  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!X_Bockting_Ԁv.Bayer(9thCir.2005) 4 t  X 442!2!399F.3d1010[asamended408F.3d1127]  B!.922,23  `  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!X_Bockting_Ԁv.Bayer(9thCir.2005)  8   X 442!2!418F.3d1055[dis._opn_.]1!1!F!.""*23  $   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XBrownv._Uphoff_(10thCir.2004)    X 442!2!381F.3d12191!1!F!. 22    X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!X_Bruton_Ԁv.UnitedStates(1968)   X 442!2!391U.S.1231!1!F!.T T 19 l  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XCaliforniav.Green(1970) D  X 442!2!399U.S.1491!1!F!.T T 18 0p  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XCartyv.Nelson(9thCir.2005) H  X 442!2!2005_U.S.App_.LEXIS274071!1!F!.jj*21 4  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!X_Corey_Ԁv.UnitedStates(D.Maine2005)    X 442!2!2005_U.S.Dist_.LEXIS198451!1!F!.``+22   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XCrawfordv.Washington(2004)   X 442!2!541U.S.36B!. passim |  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XDavisv.Alaska(1974) T   X 442!2!415U.S.3081!1!F!.T T 18 @!   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XDelawarev.Van_Arsdall_(1986) #X"  X 442!2!475U.S.673i i C!.T T 2,18 $D #  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!X_Dorchy_Ԁv.Jones(6thCir.2005) %"%  X 442!2!398F.3d7831!1!F!.X X 22 &#&  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!X_Gagnon_Ԁv._Scarpelli_(1973) ($(  X 442!2!411U.S.7781!1!F!.T T 19 )%)  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XGriffithv.Kentucky(1987) d+'+  X 442!2!479U.S.3141!1!F!.T T 22 P,(,  X 2!442!Lavev._Dretke_(5thCir.2005)   X 442!2!416F.3d3721!1!F!.X X 22   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!X_Morrisey_Ԁv.Brewer(1972)   X 442!2!408U.S.4711!1!F!.T T 19 p  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XMungov.Duncan(2ndCir.2004) H   X 442!2!393F.3d3271!1!F!.X X 22 4 t  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!X_Murillo_Ԁv.Frank(7thCir.2005)  L   X 442!2!402F.3d7861!1!F!.X X 22  8   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XNelsonv._O'Neil_(1971)    X 442!2!402U.S.6221!1!F!.T T 19    X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XOhiov.Roberts(1980)    X 442!2!448U.S.56!!G!. 1   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!X_Parle_Ԁv.Runnels(9thCir.2004) X  X 442!2!387F.3d10301!1!F!. 12 D  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPennsylvaniav.Ritchie(1987) \  X 442!2!480U.S.391!1!F!. 20 H  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XShepardv.UnitedStates(2005)    X 442!2!544U.S._____[161_L.Ed_.2d205,125_S.Ct_.1254,2005U.S.LEXIS2205]1!1!F!.V21    X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XSmithv.Illinois(1968)   X 442!2!390U.S.1291!1!F!.T T 18   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!X_Teague_Ԁv.Lane(1989) h  X 442!2!489U.S.288  B!.T T 22,23 T   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XTennesseev.Street(1985) ,"l!  X 442!2!471U.S.4091!1!F!.T T 12 #X"  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XUnitedStatesv.Allen(9thCir.2005) $0!$  X 442!2!425F.3d12311!1!F!. 14 %"%  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XUnitedStatesv._Bahena_ԄCardenas(9thCir.2005) '#'  X 442!2!411F.3d10671!1!F!. 11 ($(  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XUnitedStatesv.CervantesFlores(9thCir.2005) x*&*  X 442!2!421F.3d8251!1!F!.X X 12 d+'+  P,(,  X 2!442!UnitedStatesv._Cromer_(6thCir.2004)   X 442!2!389F.3d662!!G!.X X 4   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XUnitedStatesv.Delgado(5thCir.2005)   X 442!2!401F.3d2901!1!F!.X X 14 p  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XUnitedStatesv.Hall(9thCir.2005) H   X 442!2!419F.3d9801!1!F!.X X 20 4 t  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XUnitedStatesv._Houlihan_(1stCir.1996)  L   X 442!2!96F.3d12711!1!F!.X X 17  8   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XUnitedStatesv.Nielsen(9thCir.2004)    X 442!2!371F.3d574 D!.X X 2,7    X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XUnitedStatesv.Rashid(8thCir.2004)    X 442!2!383F.3d7691!1!F!.X X 14   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XUnitedStatesv.Rondeau(1stCir.2005) X  X 442!2!2005_U.S.App_.LEXIS252241!1!F!.jj*20 D  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XUnitedStatesv._Weiland_(9thCir.2005) \  X 442!2!420F.3d1062i i C!. 1,12 H  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XUnitedStatesv._Wilmore_(9thCir.2004)    X 442!2!381F.3d868i i C!.X X 2,18    X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XWhitev.Illinois(1992)   X 442!2!502U.S.346[112_S.Ct_.736,116_L.Ed_.2d848]!!G!.>3   X<( 4 <DL442!<  STATECASES  h    2!XCommonwealthv.Given(2004) @!   X 442!2!441Mass.741[808N.E.2d788]1!1!F!.tt/21 ,"l!  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XCommonwealthv._Gonsalves_(Mass.2005) $D #  X 442!2!445Mass.1[833N.E.2d549]!!G!.zz,7 $0!$  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XDavisv.Washington(Wash.2005) &#&  X 442!2!154_Wn_.2d291[111P.3d844,certgranted(055224)]!!G!.PPE8 '#'  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!X_Hammon_Ԁv.State(Ind.2005) )%)  X 442!2!829N.E.2d444[cert.granted,_Hammon_Ԁv.Indiana(055705)] D!.L4,7 x*&*  X<( 4 <DL442!< P,(,  2!XInreAprilC.(2005)   X 442!2!131_Cal.App_.4th599[rev.denied]1!1!F!.122   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XInreMoore(2005)   X 442!2!133_Cal.App_.4th681!1!F!.^^#22 p  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XInre_Sakarias_(2005) H   X 442!2!35Cal.4th1401!1!F!. 22 4 t  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!X_Kulshretha_Ԁv.FirstUnionCommercialCorp.(2004)  L   X 442!2!33Cal.4th6011!1!F!. 22  8   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Adams(2004)    X 442!2!120_Cal.App_.4th1065[rev.granted(S127373)]!!G!.>5    X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Angulo_(2005)    X 442!2!129_Cal.App_.4th303  B!.$19,21   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Aranda_(1965) X  X 442!2!63Cal.2d5181!1!F!. 19 D  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Arreola_(1994) \  X 442!2!74Cal.4th11441!1!F!.8 8 20 H  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Avila_(2005)    X 442!2!131_Cal.App_.4th163!!G!.$2    X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Baylor(2005)   X 442!2!130_Cal.App_.4th355[rev.grantedSept.21,2005]!!G!.B2   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Boyd(1990) h  X 442!2!222_Cal.App_.3d5411!1!F!.#19 T   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Butler(2005) ,"l!  X 442!2!127_Cal.App_.4th49[rev.denied]  B!.111,18 #X"  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Cage(2004) $0!$  X 442!2!120_Cal.App_.4th770[rev.grantedOct.13,2004(S127344)]==?!.""K5,11,22 %"%  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Carter(2005) '#'  X 442!2!36Cal.4th1114!!G!.8 8 2 ($(  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Castille_(2005) x*&*  X 442!2!129_Cal.App_.4th8631!1!F!.$13 d+'+  X<( 4 <DL442!< P,(,  2!XPeoplev.Caudillo(2004)   X 442!2!122_Cal.App_.4th1417[modified2004_Cal.App_.LEXIS1849,  rev.granted(S1292120] D!.(7,8   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Cervantes(2004) p  X 442!2!118_Cal.App_.4th162[rev.denied]uu<!.21,9,10,12 \  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Combs(2004) 4 t  X 442!2!34Cal.4th821  B!. 13,22  `  X 2!442!Peoplev._Corella_(2004)  8   X 442!2!122_Cal.App_.4th461 E!.$68  $   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Cortes(2004)    X 442!2!781N.Y.S.2d401!!G!. !8    X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Giles(2004)   X 442!2!123_Cal.App_.4th475[rev.granted(S129852)]1!1!F!.=16 l  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Gomez(2004) D  X 442!2!117_Cal.App_.4th5311!1!F!.$21 0p  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Gonzales(2005) H  X 442!2!131_Cal.App_.4th767[rev.denied]1!1!F!.221 4  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Greenberger_(1997)    X 442!2!58_Cal.App_.4th298!!G!.^^#1   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Hallquist_(2005)   X 442!2!133_Cal.App_.4th2911!1!F!.$13 |  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Harless_(2004) T   X 442!2!125_Cal.App_.4th70[rev.granted(S131011)]1!1!F!.LL<18 @!   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Houston(2005) #X"  X 442!2!130_Cal.App_.4th279!!G!.$2 $D #  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Jiles_(2004) %"%  X 442!2!122_Cal.App_.4th504[rev.granted(S128638)]1!1!F!.=16 &#&  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Johnson(2004) ($(  X 442!2!121_Cal.App_.4th1409  B!.&&%11,20 )%)  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Kilday_(2004) d+'+  X 442!2!123_Cal.App_.4th406[rev.granted(S129567)] D!.=5,6 P,(,  X 2!442!Peoplev.Lee(2004)   X 442!2!124_Cal.App_.4th483[rev.granted(S130570)]!!G!.=5   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Maki_(1985)   X 442!2!39Cal.3d7071!1!F!. 20 p  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Martinez(2005) H   X 442!2!125_Cal.App_.4th1035[rev.denied]1!1!F!.VV318 4 t  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Martinez(2005)  L   X 442!2!132_Cal.App_.4th2331!1!F!.$20  8   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Mitchell(2005)    X 442!2!131_Cal.App_.4th1210[rev.denied]i i C!.VV32,13    X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Monterroso_(2004)    X 442!2!34Cal.4th7431!1!F!. 15   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Morgan(2005) X  X 442!2!125_Cal.App_.4th935!!G!.$6 D  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Morrison(2004) \  X 442!2!34Cal.4th6981!1!F!. 18 H  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Moscat_(2004)    X 442!2!777N.Y.S.2d875!!G!. !8    X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Ochoa(2004)   X 442!2!121_Cal.App_.4th1551[rev.granted]!!G!.45   X<( 4 <DL442!<Peoplev._Partida_Ԁ(2005) h  4 __2005DAR13463!!G!." @ 2 T   2!XPeoplev.Perez(2000) ,"l!  X 442!2!82_Cal.App_.4th7601!1!F!.^^#18 #X"  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Pirwani_(2004) $0!$  X 442!2!119_Cal.App_.4th770[rev.granted(S130570)] D!.=4,5 %"%  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Price(2004) '#'  X 442!2!120_Cal.App_.4th224i i C!.$5,11 ($(  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Rincon_(2005) x*&*  X 442!2!129_Cal.App_.4th738[rev.denied]  B!.210,14 d+'+  X<( 4 <DL442!< P,(,  2!XPeoplev._Roldan_(2005)   X 442!2!35Cal.4th6461!1!F!. 13   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Saffold_(2005)   X 442!2!127_Cal.App_.4th9791!1!F!.$12 p  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Seijas_(2005) H   X 442!2!36Cal.4th291!!G!. 2 4 t  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Sisavath_(2004)  L   X 442!2!118_Cal.App_.4th1396[rev.denied]@!.VV36,7,10  8   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Smith(2003)    X 442!2!30Cal.4th5811!1!F!. 21    X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Song(2004)    X 442!2!124_Cal.App_.4th9731!1!F!.$19   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Taulton_(2005) X  X 442!2!129_Cal.App_.4th12181!1!F!.&&%12 D  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Thoma_(2005) \  X 442!2!128_Cal.App_.4th676[rev.granted(S134243)]1!1!F!.=13 H  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Thomas(2005)    X 442!2!130_Cal.App_.4th12021!1!F!.&&%13    X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Wahlert_(2005)   X 442!2!130_Cal.App_.4th709[rev.granted]1!1!F!.22310   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Whitney(2005) h  X 442!2!129_Cal.App_.4th12871!1!F!.&&%21 T   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev.Wilson(2005) ,"l!  X 442!2!36Cal.4th309!!G!. 3 #X"  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XPeoplev._Winson_(1981) $0!$  X 442!2!29Cal.3d7111!1!F!. 20 %"%  X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!X_Stancil_Ԁv.UnitedStates(D.C.App.2005) '#'  X 442!2!866A.2d799!!G!.z z 7 ($(  X<( 4 <DL442!<Spencerv.State(Tex.App.2005) x*&*  4 162S.W.3d877!!G!.J J 7 d+'+ <( 4 <DLX< P,(, Ї 2!XStatev.West(_Ill.App_.2005)   X 442!2!355_Ill.App_.3d28[823N.E.2d82] D!.25,8   X<( 4 <DL442!< 2!XWhitmanv.SuperiorCourt(1991)   X 442!2!54Cal.3d10631!1!F!. 20 p  X<( 4 <DL442!<_Zuliani_Ԁv.State(Tex.App.2003) H   4 97S.W.3d589!!G!.  @< 7 4 t <( 4 <DLX<  FEDERALSTATUTES  L    UnitedStatesConstitution   $  FifthAmendmentl l C!.n n 2,10    2!XSixthAmendmentB!. passim   <( 4 <DL2!<  2!XFederalRulesofEvidence  l 804(b)(6)1!1!F!.n n 17 D <( 4 <DL2!< _AEDPA_  \ 2254(d)(1)4!4!F!. 23  4   STATESTATUTES    2 2!X EvidenceCode   12201!1!F!.13 | <( 4 <DL2!<1240  B!.14,18 T  <( 4 <DLX< 2!X1350  B!.16,17 ,"l! <( 4 <DL2!< 2!X13701!1!F!.16 $D # <( 4 <DL2!<1380!!G!.5 %"%   OTHERAUTHORITIES  '#'   Prof.RichardFriedman,Confrontation:TheSearchforBasicPrinciples, )%)  4 86_Geo.L.J._Ԁ1011!!G!. ! @< 4 x*&* <( 4 <DLX<  d+'+  X(XXX(   Ap Oa?cCRAWFORDv.WASHINGTON  ANUPDATEDOUTLINE_D F#  1      _  January2006    %(33 "<3"  <32  I  .3  0 4   TheCrawfordholding <3݌H 4!4! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  InitsholdinginCrawfordv.Washington(2004)541U.S.36,theU.S.  p SupremeCourtabandoned24yearsofSixthAmendmentprecedentdating  \ backtoitsearlierholdinginOhiov.Roberts(1980)448U.S.56.>;ɘ݌ H  ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;{0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  Crawfordholdsthatwheneverthestateoffershearsayevidenceagainstthe   accusedthatis testimonialinnature,theSixthAmendment   ConfrontationClauserequiresashowingof>;{݌  ! ! Ќ  "?"  ??0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  unavailability;and??l݌  ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?D0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  aprioropportunityforcrossexamination(Crawford,supra,atpp. X 6869.)?Dq݌D ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  Thus,for testimonialhearsay,theruleinOhiov.Robertsthatfocuseson l the reliabilityofthehearsayisnolongervalid.>;͞݌X ! ! Ќ  "<3"  <3(2  II  .3  0 4   Standardsofreviewandprejudice <3(U݌04!4! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  PreCrawford,whetherahearsaystatementwastrustworthywasreviewed  forabuseofdiscretion.(Peoplev._Greenberger_Ԁ(1997)58_Cal.App_.4th  298,335.)>;D݌ ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  PostCrawford,thecourtindependentlyreviewsthetotalityofthe h circumstancessurroundingthestatementtodeterminewhetherhearsayis T   testimonial.(Peoplev.Cervantes(2004)118_Cal.App_.4thatp.175, @! reviewdenied[findingthestatementsnontestimonial];UnitedStatesv. ,"|  _Weiland_Ԁ(9thCir.2005)420F.3d1062,1076,fn.12[indicatingthesame #h! standardwouldapplytowhethertherewasanadequateopportunityto $T" crossexamine,andfindingpublicdocumentsnottestimonial].)>;.݌$@ # ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  Becausetestimonialhearsayimplicatestheconfrontationclause,erroneous &"% admissionofsuchevidenceisreviewedforharmlesserrorunder '#& p  e   Chapman.(UnitedStatesv.Nielsen,(9thCir.2004)371F.3d574,atp. e 581,citingDelawarev.Van_Arsdall_(1986)475U.S.673,680-681.See Q also,#X(XXX(#Peoplev.Mitchell,(2005)131_Cal.App_.4th1210[admissionof = otherwisetestimonialhearsayin911callwasX(XXX(harmlessunderChapman]; ) Peoplev.Houston(2005)130_Cal.App_.4th279[same].)>;Ȧ݌ ! ! Ќ  "<3"  <32  III  .3  0 4   Waiverorforfeitureonappeal <3݌ 4!4! Ќ  ">;"  >;Ϋ0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  InPeoplev._Partida_Ԁ(2005)򀀀2005DAR13463,theCaliforniaSupreme  ` Courthasheldthatthoughthespecificbasisforobjectionmustbestated,  L  andreviewislimitedtothatbasis,adueprocessargumentispreservedfor  8  appealregardlessofwhetherdueprocesswasinvokedinthetrialcourt.>;Ϋ݌$  ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;>0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  Peoplev.Baylor(2005)130_Cal.App_.4th355[objectiononHSgrounds a  didnotpreserveaCrawfordclaim;hearsay_declarant_Ԁwasavailablefor M  crossexaminationanyway],reviewgrantedSeptember21,2005behind 9  _Partida_.>;>k݌% ! ! Ќ  "<3"  <32  IV  .3  0 4   Unavailability :#X(XXX(#Properinvocationofthewitness5thAmendmentprivilege  rendershimunavailableforCrawford'spurposes.(Peoplev._Seijas_Ԁ(2005)36Cal.  4th291.)Waitinguntilthedaybeforetrialtolookforawitnessisnotsufficient t toshowduediligencetoestablishunavailability.(Peoplev._Avila_Ԁ(2005)131 ` _Cal.App_.4th163[nomentionofCrawford].)X(XXX(Ԁ<3ذ݌L4!4! Ќ  "<3"  <32  V  .3  0 4   Adequacyofpriorcrossexamination :EvenafterCrawford,theCalifornia $ SupremeCourtcontinuestoweightheeffectivenessofpriorcrossexaminationto y determineifitwasgoodenoughtorenderthepriortestimonyreliable.(#X(XXX(#Peoplev. e Carter(2005)36Cal.4th1114.)X(XXX(<3%݌Q4!4! Ќ  "<3"  <3Z2  VI  .3  0 4   Relatederrors :Oncetestimonialhearsayisadmitted,itmaybeaseparate6th ) Amendmentviolationtolimitcrossexaminationaboutit#X(XXX(#.(UnitedStatesv.   _Wilmore_Ԁ(9thCir.2004)381F.3d868[X(XXX(d#X(XXX(#istrictcourtrestricteddefendant'scross ! examinationofagovernmentwitnessabouthergrandjurytestimonyaftershe !  invokedtheFifthattrialandthegovernmentintroducedhergrandjurytestimony "x! asapriorinconsistentstatement].)X(XXX(<3Z݌#d"4!4! Ќ  "<3"  <32  VII  .3  0 4   Whatisconsidered testimonialhearsay? <3݌%;"  >;Ի0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  However,theCourtgiveshintstoitsmeaning:>;Ի݌=*%) ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  Testimony,...istypically[a]solemndeclarationor ,'+ affirmationmadeforthepurposeofestablishingorprovingsome -(, fact.(Crawford,supra,atp.51.)? ݌e ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  Thecourtalsoprovidedthreepossible formulationsofthe core = classoftestimonialstatementswithoutexpresslyendorsingany:?݌) ! ! Ќ  "@ir"  @irW0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  a  .3  0< ! !  exparteincourttestimonyoritsfunctional   equivalent"thatis,materialsuchasaffidavits,custodial   examinations,priortestimonythatthedefendantwas  t unabletocrossexamine,orsimilarpretrialstatementsthat  ` _declarants_Ԁwouldreasonablyexpecttobeused  L  _prosecutorially_,BriefforPetitioner23;@irW݌ 8 <!<! Ќ  "@ir"  @irL0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  b  .3  0< ! !  extrajudicialstatements...containedinformalized u  testimonialmaterials,suchasaffidavits,depositions,prior a  testimony,orconfessions.Whitev.Illinois,502U.S.346, M  365,112S.Ct.736,116_L.Ed_.2d848(1992)(Thomas,J., 9  joinedbyScalia,J.,concurringinpartandconcurringin % judgment);@irLy݌<!<! Ќ  "@ir"  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  c  .3  0< ! !  statementsthatweremadeundercircumstanceswhich  wouldleadanobjectivewitnessreasonablytobelievethat p thestatementwouldbeavailableforuseatalatertrial, \ BriefforNationalAssociationofCriminalDefense H Lawyersetal.asAmiciCuriae3.@irI݌4<!<! Ќ   4 0 0 ! !0< ! !(Crawford,supra,atpp.5152.)q <!<! "?"  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  3  .3  0 ! !  Finally,thecourtprovidedanirreducibleminimumpertinenttothe I factsbeforeit: whateverelsethetermcovers,itappliesata 5 minimumtopriortestimonyatapreliminaryhearing,beforea ! grandjury,orataformertrial;andtopoliceinterrogations.   (Crawford,supra,at.p.68[taperecordedstatementofdefendants   wife,obtainedduringherinterrogationasasuspect,was !   testimonialhearsayand,thus,subjecttoCrawfordsstringent "l! standard].)??݌#X" ! ! Ќ  "<3"  <32  VIII  .3  0 4   Priortestimony :Testimonyatafirsttrialbyawitnessunavailableata %0!$ subsequenttrialafterreversalandremandistestimonialhearsay.(Peoplev. & "% Wilson(2005)36Cal.4th309[sufficientopportunitytocrossexamineatthefirst q' #& trial].)<3݌](#'4!4! Ќ  "<3"  <32  IX  .3  0 4   Statementsmadetopoliceofficers <3݌5*%)4!4! Ќ  ">; "  >;0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  Isformalinterrogationnecessary?>;݌ ,'+ ! ! Ќ   ,(, "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  ManyCaliforniacaseshavesoughttolimit testimonialto e statementsthatweretheproductofpolice interrogation, Q eschewingtheoptionofanalyzingtheevidencethroughthefilter = ofCrawfordsobjectivewitnessintentformulation.?݌) ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  Therearetwoproblemswiththisapproach:?݌  ! ! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  a  .3  0< ! !  First,itoverlooksthehistoricalfact,significanttoJustice  t Scalia,thatjusticesofthepeaceformerlywerenot  ` magistratesasweunderstandtheofficeandthatthey  L  performedinvestigativefunctionsthatwecurrently  8  associatewiththepolice.(Crawford,supra,atp.53.)@ir ݌$ <!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @irX0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  b  .3  0< ! !  Secondly,andmoreimportant,treatingformalityasa a  prerequisiteforcategorizingastatementas testimonial M  missesthelargerpointofCrawfordwhichisthat 9  statementsmadetotheauthoritiesbypersonswhoshould % reasonablyexpectthatthestatementwouldbeusedagainst  theaccusedininvestigatingandprosecutingacrimeare  preciselythesortofaccusatorystatementtheConfrontation  Clausewasdesignedtoaddress,regardlessoftheformality p ofthesetting.@irX݌\<!<! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  3  .3  0 ! !  Anapproachappreciatingthelatterproblemhasbeentakenby 4 severalfederalcircuits.(See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv._Cromer_Ԁ(6th   Cir.2004)389F.3d662,673674[discussingagreementamong q  severalotherfederalcircuitsandfocusingonwhetherthe_declarant_ ] hasmadeanaccusatorystatement],quotingProf.Richard I Friedman,Confrontation:TheSearchforBasicPrinciples,86 5 _Geo_._L.J._Ԁ1011(1998)[ Astatementmadeknowinglytothe ! authoritiesthatdescribescriminalactivityisalmostalways    testimonial].)Note:Prof.Friedmansarticlewascited   approvinglyinCrawford,supra,atp.61,andProf.Friedmanco !  authoredoneofthemoreinfluentialamicusbriefssubmittedin "l! Crawford.?݌#X" ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  4  .3  0 ! !  AsimilarapproachhasalsobeentakenbytheSupremeCourtof %0!$ Illinois.(_Hammon_Ԁv.State(Ind.2005)829N.E.2d444[discussing &"% approachesofseveraljurisdictionsandconcludingthattestimonial m'#& isastatementgivenortakensubstantiallyforthepurposeofuseat Y(#' trial],cert.granted,_Hammon_Ԁv.Indiana(055705).)?@݌E)$( ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  Formalinterrogationcases>;݌+&* ! ! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  a  .3  0< ! !  Peoplev._Pirwani_Ԁ(2004)119_Cal.App_.4th770[videotaped ,(, statementmadebyacrimevictimtopoliceandadmitted e underEvidenceCodesection1380is testimonial],review Q granted(S130570),behindPeoplev.Cage(S127344).@ir݌=<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir^0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  b  .3  0< ! !  Peoplev.Lee(2004)124_Cal.App_.4th483[tapedinterview  oftwowitnessesbythepoliceis testimonial],review   granted(S130570),behindCage(S127344).@ir^݌ <!<! Ќ  ">; "  >;a0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  Statementtopolicenottheresultofformalinterrogation>;a݌ ` ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?y0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  Statementsmadeatcrimescenes?y݌ 8  ! ! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  a  .3  0< ! !  Peoplev.Cage(2004)120_Cal.App_.4th770,review $  grantedOctober13,2004(S127344).TheFourthDistrict, u  DivisionTwoheldthat policequestioningisnot a  necessarilypoliceinterrogation.Toconstitute M  interrogationthestatementmustbemadeinarelatively 9  formalproceedingthatcontemplatesatrial.Iteven % suggeststhestatementmustbememorializedsomehow.@ir݌<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  b  .3  0< ! !  Peoplev.Adams(2004)120_Cal.App_.4th1065,review  granted(S127373).TheThirdDistrictheldthataforty p fiveminuteinterviewofthecomplainantatthehospitalwas \ testimonial.ThiscasewastakenbytheSupremeCourtat H thesametimeasCageandpresentsthesameissue.(See 4 also,Statev.West(_Ill.App_.2005)355_Ill.App_.3d28[823   N.E.2d82][distinguishinginterviewatthehospitalto q  obtainevidencefromquestionsatthescenetoadminister ] medicalassistance],following_Kilday_.)@ir݌I<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  c  .3  0< ! !  Peoplev.Ochoa(2004)121_Cal.App_.4th1551,review ! grantedbehindbothBlackandCage.TheFourthDistrict,   DivisionOneheldthatinsistenceonformalityis   inconsistentwithcoremessageofCrawford.However,it !  alsoheldthatpreliminaryhearingcrossexaminationis "l! sufficienttopermituseofpriortestimony.(Seealso, #X" #X(XXX(#Peoplev.Price(2004)120_Cal.App_.4th.224[victim's $D # statementtopoliceatthescenewastestimonial,butthe %0!$ defendanthadand"vigorously"usedhisopportunityto &"% crossexamineatthepreliminaryhearing].)X(XXX(@ir݌m'#&<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ire0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  d  .3  0< ! !  Peoplev._Kilday_Ԁ(2004)123_Cal.App_.4th406,review E)$( granted(S129567)behindCage.TheFirstDistrictheldthe 1*%) victimsfirststatementabouthowshewasbeaten,cutand +&* thrownintothestreetmadetoofficersrespondingtothe  ,'+ scenewasnottest_imonial_Ԁbecausethevictimwas ,(,  frightenedandupset,[and]theareawasuncertain.(Id., e atp.421.)However,thesecondstatementofthevictim, Q takenabitlateratthescenebyadifferentofficerwastaken = bypoliceinan investigativecapacitytoproduceevidence ) (Id.,atp.420)and,thus,wasfoundtobetakeninresponse  interrogation.TheFirstDistrictspecificallyrejects   _Corella_ssuggestionthatformalityisnecessary.Instead,   _Kilday_holdsthat webelievethataninterpretationof  t Crawfordthatmakesthepresenceorabsenceofindicia,of  ` formalitydeterminativeisinconsistentwiththeSupreme  L  Courtfocuson theproductionoftestimonialevidence8  8  whichmayoccurduringrelativelyinformalquestioningin $  thefield.(Id.,atp.422).@ire݌u <!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  e  .3  0< ! !  Peoplev.Morgan(2005)125_Cal.App_.4th935.TheThird 9  Districtheldthatstatements,includingimpliedassertions % requestingdrugsmadebyacallertoahousewherea  searchwarrantwasbeingexecuted(andwhichwere  interceptedbyapoliceofficer)werenot testimonial,  because theinformalstatementmadeinanunstructured p settingdoesnotresemblethepoliceinterrogationin \ Crawford8[and]theofficersminimalresponsetothe H callerisnottheinvolvementofgovernmentofficersinthe 4 productionoftestimonywithaneyetowardtrial[that]   presentsuniquepotentialforprosecutorialabuse.(Id.at q  p.947.)However,thepoliceofficerherepretendedtobe ] anassociateofthedefendantandwentontoelicitwhat I amountofdrugswasneededaswellastoinvitethecaller 5 tocomeover(whichhadtheeffectofconfirmingtheintent ! tobuy)inordertoascertainevidenceofthedefendants   drugsaleactivity,soitisdifficulttoseewhythepolice   officersactionsdontamountto interrogationunder !  Crawford.@ir݌"l!<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  f  .3  0< ! !  Peoplev._Corella_Ԁ(2004)122_Cal.App_.4th461.Mostlya $D # 911callcase,butitalsodealswithfollowupstatements %0!$ madetoarespondingpoliceofficers.TheSecondDistrict &"% heldthesestatementswerenotinresponsetointerrogation m'#& because underCrawfordapoliceinterrogationrequiresa Y(#' relativelyformalinvestigationwhereatrialis E)$( contemplated.(Id.,atp.468.)@ir݌1*%)<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  g  .3  0< ! !  Peoplev._Sisavath_Ԁ(2004)118_Cal.App_.4th1396,review  ,'+ denied.Althoughprincipallyaboutavideotapedstatement ,(, madetoaprivatechildabusecenter,theFifthDistrictheld, e withoutmuchanalysis,thatastatementtheallegedchild Q victimmadetoapoliceofficerwhorespondedtoa = complaintbythemothertobe testimonial,becausethe )  statementwasknowinglygiveninresponsetostructured  policequestioning.(Id.,atp.1402.)@ir݌ <!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir 0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  h  .3  0< ! !  Consistentwiththe_Cromer_and_Hammon_approach,United  t Statesv.Nielsen(9thCir.2004)371F.3d574heldthatthe  ` defendantsgirlfriendsstatementinresponsetopolice  L  questioningduringasearchandindefendantsabsence,  8  thatonlydefendanthadaccesstoasafeinwhichdrugs $  werefoundwastestimonialhearsay.@ir  ݌u <!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir 0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  i  .3  0< ! !  #X(XXX(#InSpencerv.State(Tex.App.2005)162S.W.3d877,881X(XXX(, M  thecourtreasoned,#X(XXX(# excitedutterancescanbemadeboth 9  spontaneouslyandinresponsetoquestioning.... % Accordingly,wedeclinetojointhosecourtsthathave  establishedabright-linerulethatexcitedutterancescan  neverbetestimonial.X(XXX((Citing#X(XXX(b#_Zuliani_Ԁv.State(Tex.App.  2003)97S.W.3d589,596and_Stancil_Ԁv.UnitedStates p (D.C.App.2005)866A.2d799,809[ Someexcited \ utterancesaretestimonial,andothersarenot,dependingon H thecircumstances].Seealso,_Hammon_Ԁv.State,supra, 4 829N.E.2datp.449[ nomatterhowfirmlyrootedthe   excitedutteranceexceptionmaybethecourtrejectsthe q  notionthat anexcitedutteranceisnecessarily ] _nontestimonial_],cert.granted.)X(XXX(@ir  ݌I<!<! Ќ  "@ir  "  @ir20 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  j  .3  0< ! !  Commonwealthv._Gonsalves_Ԁ(Mass.2005)445Mass.1 ! [833N.E.2d549],heldthatstatementsmadeinresponseto   policequestioningatthescene arepersetestimonial,   exceptwherenecessaryto secureavolatilesceneor !  obtain medicalcare.@ir2_݌"l!<!<! Ќ  "?  "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  911calls?݌$D # ! ! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  a  .3  0< ! !  Peoplev._Corella_,supra,122_Cal.App_.4thatp.468.The &"% defendantswifesstatementtothe911operatorthather m'#& husbandhitherwasfoundtobenontestimonialbecauseit Y(#' wasnot knowinglygiveninresponsetostructuredpolice E)$( questioning.@ir݌1*%)<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @irX0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  b  .3  0< ! !  Peoplev.Caudillo(2004)122_Cal.App_.4th1417,as  ,'+ modified2004Cal.App.LEXIS1849,reviewgranted ,(, (S129212).TheSixthDistrictheldthatstatements e reporting menwithgunsandprovidingadescriptionof Q thecarfromwhichshotswerefiredbyananonymousnon = victimtothe911operatorwere nontestimonial,despite ) thefactthatcallwasmadeforthespecificpurposeof  providingthepolicewiththeinformationnecessaryto   apprehendtheshooters,becauseitwasnot madeunder   circumstancesthatwouldleadanobjectivewitness  t reasonablytobelievethestatementwouldbeavailablefor  ` lateruseattrial.(Id.,atp.1440).@irX݌ L <!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  c  .3  0< ! !  Peoplev._Moscat_Ԁ(2004)777_N.Y.S._Ԁ2d875.Inanalysis $  consistentwith_Corella_,supra,andCaudillo,supra,the u  courtheldthatastatementmadetoa911operatorisnot a  testimonial,becausea testimonialstatementisproduced M  whenthegovernmentsummonsacitizentobeawitness;in 9  a911callitisthecitizenwhosummonsthegovernmentto % heraid.@ir0݌<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @irj"0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  d  .3  0< ! !  Peoplev.Cortes(2004)781_N.Y.S._Ԁ2d401.Thecourtheld  thatstatementbyathirdpartywitnesstoashootingtoa9 p 11operatorwastestimonial,because [_w]hen_Ԁa911callis \ madetoreportacrimeandsupplyinformationaboutthe H circumstancesandthepeopleinvolved,thepurposeofthe 4 informationisfortheinvestigation,prosecutionand   potentialuseatajudicialproceeding;itmakesno q  differencewhatthecallerbelieves.(Id.,atp.415.)@irj""݌]<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir&0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  e  .3  0< ! !  Davisv.Washington(Wash.2005)154_Wn_.2d291[111 5 P.3d844],cert.granted(055224):heldthata911call ! mustbeanalyzedonacasebycasebasis.Anygivencall   mayhavesometestimonial(identifyingtheperpetratorofa   crime)andsomenontestimonial(requestingaid) !  statements.Erroneousadmissionofthewholestatementin "l! thiscasewasharmlessunderChapman.@ir&F&݌#X"<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir?)0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  f  .3  0< ! !  Statev.West(_Ill.App_.2005)355_Ill.App_.3d28[823N.E.2d %0!$ 82],similarlyrejectedabrightlinerule,andconcludedthat &"% a911callreportingacrimeconstituted bearingwitness m'#& andlaterstatementsinresponsetoquestionswerealso Y(#' testimonial.@ir?)l)݌E)$(<!<! Ќ  "<3 "  <3+2  X  .3  0 4   Statementstonongovernmentalindividuals <3+ ,݌+&*4!4! Ќ  ">; "  >;,0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  [A]personwhomakesacasualremarktoanacquaintanceisnotmaking ,(, a testimonialstatement.(Crawford,supra,atp.51.)>;,-݌e ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?a.0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  NoneofJusticeScaliascoreexamplesoftestimonialstatements = involvestatementstoprivatepersons;and?a..݌) ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?/0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  JusticeScaliashistorylesson,withitsfocusonthecivillawmode   ofcriminalprocedureandparticularlyitsuseofexparte   examinationsasevidenceagainsttheaccused,couldbeviewedas  t beingexclusivelyconcernedwithgovernmentinvolvementinthe  ` creationofthehearsay.?/0݌ L  ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;:20 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  However,Crawfordprovidesindicationsthatsomestatementstonon $  governmentalindividualsmaybe testimonial.>;:2g2݌u  ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?30 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  Twoofthethree formulationsof testimonialhearsaythat M  JusticeScaliaprovidesfocusontheintentofthe_declarant_Ԁ(i.e., 9  whethera _declarant_or anobjectivewitnesswould reasonably % [8]believethatthestatementwouldbeavailableforuseatalater  trial.)(Crawford,supra,atpp.1152.)Suchatestwould  certainlycoversomestatementsmadetoprivatepersons.?33݌ ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?60 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  Thefullimplicationsofsuchalimitationonthemeaningofthe \ term testimonialwouldmakeamockeryoftheCrawford H holding.UsingJusticeScaliasprimeexample,thatwouldmean 4 SirWalterRaleighcouldstillhavebeenconvictedonexparte   affidavitssolongastheyweregiventoprivatepersonsregardless q  ofhowaccusatorytheywere.Modernly,videotapedstatementsby ] thevictimorawitness,takenbyarapecounselor,domestic I violencecounselor,privateattorney,oranyotherprivateperson, 5 wouldallbeexemptfromthesweepofCrawford.?67݌! ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;:0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  SomeCaliforniacasesdeclinetoadoptthisprivatepersonlimitation:>;::݌  ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?;0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  Peoplev.Cervantes(2004)118_Cal.App_.4th162,reviewdenied. "l! Thoughthecourtfoundthestatementtobe nontestimonial,it #X" assumedstatementstoprivatepersonscouldqualifyas $D #  testimonialandfoundthethird formulationtobe %0!$ determinativeonwhethertheyactuallyare.Thecourtfoundthat &"% thestatementmadebyacodefendanttoaneighborintheprocess m'#& ofseekingmedicalhelpwasnot madeundercircumstanceswhich Y(#' wouldleadanobjectivewitnessreasonablytobelievethatthe E)$( statementwouldbeavailableforuseatalatertrial.Itfocusedon 1*%) gettingmedicalcareratherthanmakinganaccusation,andthus, +&* thestatementwas nontestimonialnotbecauseitwasmadetoa  ,'+ privateperson,butforotherreasons.?;<݌,(, ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?@0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  Peoplev._Sisavath_,supra,118_Cal.App_.4thatp.1402.TheFifth Q DistrictspecificallyrejectedtheAttorneyGeneralsargumentthat = thechildsvideotapedstatementcouldnotbe testimonial ) becauseitwasnotgiventoagovernmentemployee.TheCourt  reasonedinsteadthatthepertinentquestionis whetheran   objectiveobserverwouldreasonablyexpectthestatementtobe   availableforuseinaprosecution,andheldthestatementwas  t  testimonial.Note,however,thatinthiscase,theinterview  ` duringwhichthestatementsweremadetoprivatepartieswas  L  attendedbytheprosecutorandtheprosecutorsinvestigator.?@A݌ 8  ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?gE0 4 0 4!4!2  3  .3  0 ! !  #X(XXX(#Defendant'sstatementstocodefendantmadeduringconversation u  setupbypoliceasa pretextcalltogetevidenceagainst a  defendantwereinadmissibleunderCrawford.Thedefendantwho M  doesnottestifyispresumptivelyunavailableduetothe5th 9  Amendment.(Peoplev._Wahlert_Ԁ(2005)130_Cal.App_.4th709 % [errorharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt],reviewgranted.)X(XXX(?gEE݌ ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?H0 4 0 4!4!2  4  .3  0 ! !  Notethat_Sisavath_andCervanteseachdefinestheuseof  Crawfords ThirdFormulationdifferently.Cervantessticks p closetothelanguageofCrawfordandaskswhether areasonable \ personin[the_declarant_s]positionwouldreasonablybelievethe H statementwouldbeusedattrial.(Cervantes,supra,atp.174.) 4 _Sisavath_rejectsthatapproach,observing Itismorelikelythatthe   SupremeCourtmeantsimplythatifthestatementwasgivenunder q  circumstancesinwhichitsuseinaprosecutionisreasonably ] foreseeablebyanobjectiveobserver,thenthestatementis I testimonial.(_Sisavath_,supra,atp.1402).Thisdistinction 5 betweenwhatwouldbethoughtbyareasonable_declarant_Ԁas ! opposedtoareasonableobserverwasnotdeterminativeineitherof   thesecases.However,whenthe_declarant_Ԁisachild,someveryold   personorsomeoneelsewhoarguablyhasnoawarenessofthe !  possibletrialusageoftheirstatements,thedistinctioncouldbe "l! critical.?HH݌#X" ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;O0 4 2  D  .3  0 4!4!  However,severalCaliforniacaseshavedeclinedtofindstatementsto %0!$ privatepersonstobe testimonial:>;OO݌&"% ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?$Q0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  #X(XXX(cH#Peoplev._Rincon_Ԁ(2005)129_Cal.App_.4th738,reviewdenied.The Y(#' SecondDistrictheldanoutofcourtstatementmadebyashooting E)$( victimtohisformergangmemberfriendwasnot testimonial 1*%) becausehecouldnotreasonablyhaveexpectedthefriendtorelate +&* thestatementtothepoliceforuseinaprosecution.X(XXX(?$QQQ݌ ,'+ ! ! Ќ   ,(, "? "  ?GT0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  #X(XXX(S#Peoplev.Butler(2005)127_Cal.App_.4th49,reviewdenied e expressedahardlineagainstanystatementnotmadeinthecourse Q ofpoliceinterrogation.Here,thestatementsweremadebyschool = stafftootherstaffidentifyingthedefendantoratleast ) incriminatinghiminashooting,andtheyweremadeinthecourse  ofschoolstafftryingtoinvestigatetheshooting.Aseparateschool   staffercalled911andreportedthestatements,someofwhich   werethirdlevelhearsay.Thedefendantonappealarguedthe  t statementsrelatedwere testimonialunderCrawfordssocalled  `  thirdformulationasdescribedin_Sisavath_.TheCourtreasoned,  L   WefindnolanguageinCrawfordthatsupportsthesearguments.  8  Rather,appellant'spositioniscontrarytothelanguagewehave $  quotedfromCrawfordinwhichtheSupremeCourtfocusedon u  statementsgiveninlieuoforaltestimony,suchasanaffidavit,or a  giventoagovernmentofficialinaformalstatement.X(XXX(?GTtT݌M  ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?Z0 4 0 4!4!2  3  .3  0 ! !  Peoplev.Cage,supra,120_Cal.App_.4th770,reviewgranted.The % FourthDistrict,DivisionTwoadoptedtheAttorneyGenerals  argumentforastatementmadebythevictimtoadoctoratthe  emergencyroom,emphasizingthatthedoctorwasneitherapolice  officernoranagentofthepolice.(Butsee,#X(XXX(fZ#Peoplev.Price(2004) p 120_Cal.App_.4th.224X(XXX([distinguishingstatementsmadetodoctorto \ obtaindiagnosisandtreatmentfromthoseidentifyingher H assailant].)?ZZ݌4 ! ! Ќ  "<3 "  <3^2  XI  .3  0 4   Whatdocumentsmaybe testimonial? <3^^݌q 4!4! Ќ  "? "  ?_0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  InPeoplev.Johnson(2004)121_Cal.App_.4th1409,inadditionto I holdingthatCrawforddidnotapplytoaprobationrevocation 5 hearing(discussedbelow),theFirstDistrictreasonedthatalab ! reportwasnot testimonial.Thisportionoftheopinionwas   dicta,giventhebroaderholdinginthecasethattheSixth   Amendmentsimplydidnotapply.However,thelabreport !  containedanexpertdeterminationofthenarcoticqualityofthe "l! substancepossessedbydefendant.ItwaspreparedbytheAlameda #X" CountyCrimeLaboratory.Surely,suchareportwas madeunder $D # circumstanceswhichwouldleadanobjectivewitnessreasonablyto %0!$ believethatthestatementwouldbeavailableforuseatalater &"% trial.(Crawford,supraatpp.5152.)?__݌m'#& ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?d0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  #X(XXX(]#AwarrantofdeportationheldinthedefendantsINSfilewas E)$( admissibletoprovedefendantleftthecountryevenafterCrawford 1*%) becauseitiswasnotpreparedforthepurposeoflitigation;itwas +&* nottestimonial.(UnitedStatesv._Bahena_ԄCardenas(9thCir.  ,'+ 2005)411F.3d1067.)?dd݌,(, ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?Lg0 4 0 4!4!2  3  .3  0 ! !  Acertificateofnonexistenceofrecord,submittedbythe Q governmenttoprovethatdefendanthadnotreceivedtheAttorney = GeneralsconsenttoreentertheUnitedStatesinprosecutionfor ) beingfoundintheU.S.afterdeportation,wasnottestimonial.  Eventhoughthecertificatewaspreparedforlitigation,the   underlyingdocumentwhichthecertificateattesteddidnotexist   wasnot.(UnitedStatesv.CervantesFlores(9thCir.2005)421  t F.3d825.)?Lgyg݌ ` ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?j0 4 0 4!4!2  4  .3  0 ! !  RelyingonaconservatorshipcaseandtwoCaliforniastatutes,the  8  SecondDistrictheldinPeoplev._Saffold_Ԁ(2005)127_Cal.App_.4th $  979thataproofofserviceexecutedbyadeputysheriffservinga u  restrainingorderonthedefendantwasnottestimonialina a  prosecutionfor7countsofviolatingtherestrainingorder.?jj݌M  ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?em0 4 0 4!4!2  5  .3  0 ! !  APenalCodesection 969bpacketwasnot testimonialbecause % thedocumentswerenotobtainedforthepurposeofpotentially  usingtheminacriminaltrialordeterminingifacriminalcharge  shouldissue(Peoplev._Taulton_Ԁ(2005)129_Cal.App_.4th1218,  disagreeingwithPeoplev.Cervantes(2004)118_Cal.App_.4th162. p _Foreseeability_Ԁisnotthestandard,thepurposeforwhichthe \ documentwaspreparedis.(Seealso,UnitedStatesv._Weiland_(9th H Cir.2005)420F.3d1062[ Penitentiarypacketwasapublic 4 recordunderCrawford].)?emm݌  ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?q0 4 0 4!4!2  6  .3  0 ! !  X(XXX(Amurdervictimsdiarywasnottestimonial.(_Parle_Ԁv.Runnels ] (9thCir.2004)387F.3d1030.?qr݌I ! ! Ќ  "<3 "  <3s2  XII  .3  0 4   Statementswhicharenothearsay,ornotadmittedtoprovethetruth<3ss݌!4!4! Ќ  "? "  ?t0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !   The[confrontation]clause8doesnotbartheuseoftestimonial   statementsforpurposesotherthanestablishingthetruthofthe !  matterasserted.SeeTennesseev.Street,471U.S.409(1985)8 "l! (Crawford,supra,atp.59,fn.9.)InStreet,thecodefendants #X" confessionwasofferedinrebuttaltoshowthathehadnotsaid $D # whatdefendanttestifiedhehadsaid.Thus,itwasnotofferedfor %0!$ itstruthbut,rather,todemonstrateadiscrepancy,impeachingthe &"% defendantscredibility.?tt݌m'#& ! ! Ќ   4  2.0 TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasaccordinglyheldthataco E)$( defendantsstatementsmadeduringavideotapedreenactmentof 1*%) thecrime(donejointlybydefendantandcodefendant)donot+&* ! ! 0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !raiseConfrontationClauseissuesbecausetheywerenotoffered ,'+ ! !  4   forahearsaypurpose.Inthecourtsview,thedefendantadopted ,(, 0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !hiscodefendantsstatementsandtheywerenotofferedfortheir e truthbut,rather,tosupplymeaningtodefendantsconductor Q silenceinthefaceofthem.(Peoplev.Combs(2004)34Cal.4th = 821,842.)) ! ! #X(XXX(r#"? "  ?{0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  InPeoplev.Thomas(2005)130_Cal.App_.4th1202,thecourtheld   thatrelianceonhearsayregardingthedefendantsgangstatuswas   permissibletosubstantiateanexpertopinionbecauseitisnot  t  testimonial.(Seealso, Peoplev._Hallquist_Ԁ(2005)133  ` _Cal.App_.4th291[apostCrawfordcasewithoutanymentionof  L  Crawfordheldthatinformationonalabelwashearsay,because  8  theexpertrelieduponitstruthinforminghisopinion;however, $  sincesuchrelianceisproper,therewasnoerrorinadmittingthe u  testimony].X(XXX(?{,|݌a  ! ! Ќ  "<3 "  <3D2  XIII  .3  0 4   Hearsayexceptions <3Dq݌9 4!4! Ќ  "? "  ?&0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  Itisastapleofevidencelawthattheverytheoryunderlyingtheuse  ofapartysstatementsagainsthim(underthepartyadmissions  exception)isthebeliefthatapartycanhardlycomplainabouta  lackofanopportunitytocrossexaminehimself(Calif._Ev_.Code p 1220(comment)).NothinginCrawfordsuggestsanintenttogo \ beyondthishoaryprincipleandallowthedefendantanewbasisfor H excludinghisownstatements.(Peoplev._Roldan_Ԁ(2005)35 4 Cal.4th646,711,fn.25.Seealso,#X(XXX(#Peoplev._Castille_Ԁ(2005)129   _Cal.App_.4th863[defendantssilenceinfaceofcodefendants q  statementsduringjointinterview];X(XXX(Peoplev._Thoma_Ԁ(2005)128 ] _Cal.App_.4th676,reviewgranted(S134243)[issue:whether I defendantssilenceduringacourthearingcanbedeemedan 5 adoptiveadmission].)?&S݌! ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?N0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  #X(XXX(#Peoplev.Mitchell(2005)131_Cal.App_.4th1210,reviewdenied:   SecondDistrictheld:X(XXX( Classificationasabusinessrecord, !  however,doesnotalonedeterminewhetherthistypeofevidenceis "l! admissibleas_nontestimonial_ԀunderCrawford.InCrawford,the #X" SupremeCourtnotedbusinessrecordswereoneexampleof $D # hearsaystatementsthatbytheirnaturewerenottestimonial.By %0!$ thisthecourtcouldnothavemeantalldocumentaryevidence &"% whichcouldbroadlyqualifyinsomecontextasabusinessrecord m'#& shouldautomaticallybeconsidered_nontestimonial_.Thus,the Y(#' questionsbeforeacourtaremoreproperlywhetherthebusiness E)$( recordinquestionneverthelesscontainstestimonialevidenceand 1*%) whethertherecordisadmissibleincompliancewithCrawfords +&* requirements.Here,thecourtreasonedthatadispatchlogtape  ,'+ wasabusinessrecord,relevanttotheofficersactionsandstateof ,(, mind,and immaterialtoanycontestedmatterinthetrial.Thus, e itwasnotmadeinadmissibleunderthe6thA.byCrawford. Q Admissionofthe2statementsonthetapethatincriminatedthe = defendantappellantwasharmlessunderChapman.?N{݌) ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  3  .3  0 ! !  #X(XXX(#Peoplev._Rincon_Ԁ(2005)129_Cal.App_.4th738,reviewdenied.The   SecondDistrictheldanoutofcourtstatementmadebyashooting   victimimmediatelyaftertheshootingtohisformergangmember  t friendwasnot testimonialhearsaybecauseitqualifiedasa  `  spontaneousstatementunderEvidenceCodesection1240,  L  whichCrawford stronglyimpliedwasexceptedfromSixth  8  Amendmentprotection,citingCrawford,supra,541U.S.atp.58, $  fn.8[astatementmade _immediat[ely_]uponthehurtreceived, u  andbefore[the_declarant_]hadtimetodeviseorcontriveanything a  forherownadvantage.].)X(XXX(?݌M  ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?ړ0 4 0 4!4!2  4  .3  0 ! !  Co-conspiratorstatementsarenottestimonialandtherefore % beyondthecompassofCrawfordsholding.See[Crawford]at56  (describingstatementsinfurtheranceofaconspiracyas  statementsthatbytheirnature[are]nottestimonial)(United  Statesv.Allen(9thCir.2005)425F.3d1231,quotingCrawford p andcitingUnitedStatesv.Delgado(5thCir.2005)401F.3d290, \ 299andUnitedStatesv.Rashid(8thCir.2004)383F.3d769, H 777.)?ړ݌4 ! ! Ќ  ">; "  >;O0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  DyingDeclarationsand ForfeiturebyMisconduct>;O|݌q  ! ! Ќ  "? "  ?d0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  DyingdeclarationsareprobablyexemptfromCrawfordsanalysis I undereitheroftwodifferentrationales:?d݌5 ! ! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  a  .3  0< ! !  theyrepresentanhistoricexceptiontotheconfrontation   clausethatisincorporatedaspartofCrawfordseffortto   capturethehistoricmeaningoftheSixthAmendment;or@ir݌! <!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @irƛ0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  b  .3  0< ! !  theyareadmissibleunderJusticeScaliasequitabletheory #X" of forfeiturebymisconduct(i.e.ifyoupreventedthe $D # witnessfromtestifyingyoucantbeheardtocomplainof %0!$ aninabilitytocrossexaminethewitness).@irƛ݌&"%<!<! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  DyingDeclarationsasanExceptiontotheConfrontationClause?݌Y(#' ! ! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  a  .3  0< ! !  JusticeScaliaciteshistoriansforthepropositionthatdying E)$( declarationsweretheonlyrecognizedcriminalhearsay 1*%) exceptionatcommonlaw.Therefore,heconcludes, +&*  Althoughmanydyingdeclarationsmaybetestimonial,  ,'+ thereisauthorityforadmittingeventhosethatclearlyare. ,(,  Oa      However,heultimatelyreservestheissue,concluding We e neednotdecideinthiscasewhethertheSixthAmendment Q incorporatesanexceptionfortestimonialdying = declarations.Ifthisexceptionmustbeacceptedon ) historicalgrounds,itissuigeneris.(Crawford,supra,p.  56,f.n.6.)@irJ݌ <!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  b  .3  0< ! !  TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtseizeduponthissuggestion  t toholdinPeoplev._Monterroso_(2004)34Cal.4th743,a  ` deathpenaltycase,thatdyingdeclarationsdonotviolate  L  theconfrontationclause.Doingitsownhistoricalanalysis,  8  thecourtconcludedthatdyingdeclarationswerea $  recognizedexceptionatcommonlawandCrawfordteaches u  thattheConfrontationClausemustbereadasitexistedat a  thattime.@ir݌M <!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  c  .3  0< ! !  Note:_Monterroso_holdsoutathinreedinfootnote5: We % donotdecidewhether[the_declarant_s]statementwas  testimonialwithinthemeaningofCrawford,norwhether  thestatementwasadmissibleonothergrounds.Itis  possiblethatthiscouldleadtoanargumentthatdying p declarationsthatareclearlytestimonialcouldyetbe \ excluded.@ir݌H<!<! Ќ  "? "  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  3  .3  0 ! !  ForfeiturebyMisconduct?B݌  ! ! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  a  .3  0< ! !  JusticeScaliaalsoadoptedtheconceptof forfeitureby ] wrongdoingasaseparateanddistinctexceptiontothe I ConfrontationClause,butthendeclinedtogiveusany 5 insightintowhatitscontourmightbe.Distinguishing ! exceptionsbasedonthereliabilityanalysisofRoberts   (whichhedisavowed),JusticeScaliatellsus [_T]he_Ԁruleof   forfeiturebywrongdoing(whichweaccept)extinguishes !  confrontationclaimsonessentiallyequitablegrounds;it "l! doesnotpurporttobeanalternativemeansofdetermining #X" reliability.(Crawford,supraatp.62.)@irL݌$D #<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @irD0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  b  .3  0< ! !  Forfeiturebywrongdoingispotentiallyaverypowerful &"% doctrineandcouldextendwellbeyonddyingdeclarations. m'#& Byitsveryterms,itcanapplyanytimeitcanbeshownthat Y(#' thedefendanthadahandinthe_declarant_sunavailability.@irDq݌E)$(<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  c  .3  0< ! !  Note:thisequitablycreatedexceptiontotheConfrontation +&* Clausemustcarefullybedistinguishedfromthehearsay  ,'+ ?c    exceptionofEvidenceCodesection1350,whichcreatesa e hearsayexceptioninseriousfelonycasesforhearsay Q statementsmadebyunavailablewitnesseswhen [_t]here_Ԁis = clearandconvincingevidencethatthe_declarant_s ) unavailabilitywasknowinglycausedby,aidedby,or  solicitedbythepartyagainstwhenthisstatementis   offered.IfCrawfordstandsforanything,itisthatthe   meaningoftheConfrontationClauseisnottobe  t determinedbystateshearsaylaws.@irʱ݌ `<!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @irL0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  d  .3  0< ! !  TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasnotpreviouslyaddressed  8  theapplicabilityofsuchasexceptiontotheConfrontation $  Clausebuthasjusttakentheissueinagrantofreviewto u  twosimilarlynamedcases:Peoplev.Giles(2004)123 a  _Cal.App_.4th475,reviewgranted(S129852)andPeoplev. M  _Jiles_Ԁ(2004)122Cal.App4th504,reviewgranted 9  (S128638).Theordergrantingreviewlistedtwoissues: % whethertheforfeituredoctrineappliesonthefactsofthese  casesandwhetherthedoctrineapplieswhenthealleged   wrongdoingisthesameastheoffenseforwhich  defendantwasontrial.InGiles,theFourthDistrict, p DivisionTwo,upheldtheadmissionofadyingdeclaration \ pursuanttotheforfeituredoctrine.In_Jiles_,theSecond H Districtappliedtheforfeituredoctrinetostatementsofthe 4 victimmadeafewweeksbeforebeingshotandkilledthat   wereadmittedunder_Evid_.Code1370.@irLy݌q <!<! Ќ  "@ir "  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  e  .3  0< ! !  Forfeituredoctrineraisesahostofthornyissues.@ir޼݌I<!<! Ќ  "B "  B0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !0< ! !2(  1  )3  0<!<!  Themostobviousproblemistheonenotedfor ! briefingbytheCaliforniaSupremeCourt:should   thedoctrineapplywhenthealleged wrongdoing   isthesameastheoffenseforwhichthedefendantis !  ontrial.Thiswouldrequirethetrialcourtto "l! determine,asapredicateforadmissibility,thatthe #X" defendantisguiltyofthecrimeforwhichheis $D # charged.Gilesreasonedthatcourtsarenot %0!$ precludedfromdeterminingpreliminaryfacts &"% necessaryforanevidentiaryrulingmerelybecause m'#& theycoincidewithanultimatefactinthecase.B݌Y(#'!! Ќ  "B "  B0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !0< ! !2(  2  )3  0<!<!  Asecondissueiswhetherapplicationofthe 1*%) doctrineshouldrequireproofthatdefendantsacts +&* ofwrongdoingwerecommittedwiththespecific  ,'+ intentofpreventingtestimonyaboutthatcrime.A ,(, fairlyrecentfederalopinionspecificallyimposes e sucharequirementaspartoftheequitable Q underpinningsofthedoctrine.(U.S.v._Houlihan_ = (1stCir.1996)96F.3d1271,1280.)Although ) hearsayrulesdonotgovernconfrontationissuesany  more,itisworthnotingthatboththeCaliforniaand   Federalhearsayexceptionsinthisarea(_Evid_.Code   1350;Fed.Ruleof_Evid_.804(b)(6))bothrequire  t proofofsuchintent.Gilesdeclinedtoimposesuch  ` arequirementalthoughitdidrequireproofthat  L  defendantdidcommitanintentionalcriminalact.B"݌ 8 !! Ќ  "B "  B0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !0< ! !2(  3  )3  0<!<!  Anotherissueiswhatburdenofproofshould u  controlthejudgesdecision.TheCourtofAppeals a  decisioninGilesandtheCaliforniahearsay M  exceptionrequireclearandconvincingproof.B݌9 !! Ќ  "B "  B0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !0< ! !2(  4  )3  0<!<!  Lastly,andperhapsmostimportantly,thereisthe  questionofwhatwouldbethesweepofsucha  doctrineifitisadoptedasanexceptiontothe  confrontationclause.TheNov.Dec.2004issueof p Prosecutormagazinearguesthatthedoctrinebe \ appliedinalldomesticviolencecaseswherethe H spousevictimrefusestotestify.Itisnothardtosee 4 expansionofthisapproachtoincludeallchildabuse   caseswherethevictimrecantsorrefusestotestify.B݌q !! Ќ  "B "  B70 4 0 4!4!0 ! !0< ! !2(  5  )3  0<!<!  Againsttheexpansionofthedoctrinetonegatethe I effectofCrawford,itshouldbenotedthatin 5 Crawford,itself,thedefendantkepthiswifefrom ! testifyingbyinvokingWashingtonsmarital   privilege.Thestatearguedthatthedefendanthad   waivedtheprotectionsoftheconfrontationclause, !  anargumentthatcouldeasilyberecastinforfeiture "l! terms.Thestatecourtrejectedthisargument #X" reasoningthat forcingthedefendanttochoose $D # betweenthemaritalprivilegeandconfrontinghis %0!$ spousepresentsanuntenableHobsonschoice. &"% (Crawford,supra,atp.42,_f.n._Ԁ1).Thestatedidnot m'#& pursuethisissueonappeal,andtheSupremeCourt Y(#' specificallynoteditwasexpressingnoopinionon E)$( thismatter.(Ibid.)B7d݌1*%)!! Ќ   ,(,  "<3 "  <32  XIV  .3  0 4   NoSixthAmendmentIssueWhenthe_Declarant_ԀTestifies <3݌e4!4! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  Inthesamefootnoteexemptingnonhearsaypurposeofextrajudicial = statements,theCourtalsosaid, [_W]e_Ԁreiteratethat,whenthe_declarant_ ) appearsforcrossexaminationattrial,theConfrontationClauseplacesno  constraintsatallontheuseofhispriortestimonialstatements.See,   Californiav.Green,399U.S.149(1970).(Crawford,supra,atp.59,fn.   9.)Thus,whetherornotthehearsaystatementistestimonial,the  t ConfrontationClauseissatisfiedifthe_declarant_Ԁispresentincourt,  ` testifies,andissubjecttocrossexamination.(Peoplev.Martinez(2005)  L  125_Cal.App_.4th1035,reviewdenied.Seealso,Peoplev.Morrison  8  (2004)34Cal.4th698,720[notinginpassingthattheintroductionofa $  witnesssprioridentificationofdefendant(admittedasaspontaneous u  declarationunder_Evid_.Code1240)raisedno6thAmendmentissue a  becausethewitnesstestifiedattrialandwassubjecttocrossexamination M  aboutthestatement].)>;݌9  ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;40 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  InPeoplev._Harless_Ԁ(2004)125_Cal.App_.4th70,theSixthDistrictapplied  thisprincipletoasituationwherethewitnesswasimpeachedbyaprior  inconsistentstatementwhichshemaintainedshecouldnotrecall.The  courtfoundthewitnesswassubjectedtoeffectivecrossexaminationabout p thehearsaystatement.Despiteherpartialfailureofmemory,shetriedto \ explainherstatementsandthejuryhadachancetoassessherdemeanor. H Reviewgranted(S131011)behindBlackand_Towne_.>;4a݌4 ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  AlthoughthereispreCrawfordcaselawholdingthatasignificantfailure q  torecollectdoesnotnecessarilydeprivethedefendantofthecross ] examinationguaranteedbytheSixthAmendment(Californiav.Green, I supra;Peoplev.Perez(2000)82Cal.App.4th760,762),onecould 5 questionwhetherCrawfordissatisfiedwhenthewitnessclaimsatotal ! failureofmemory._Harless_Ԁisarguablyboundbyitsfacts(thewitnessdid   attempttoexplainawayherstatement),andarecentNinthCircuitcase   (U.S.v._Wilmore_Ԁ(9thCir.2004)381F.3d868)heldthatrestrictionson !  crossexaminationcanrenderuseofapriorstatementaviolationofSixth "l! AmendmentconfrontationrightsunderCrawford.(Seealso,Smithv. #X" Illinois(1968)390U.S.129;Davisv.Alaska(1974)415U.S.308;and $D # Delawarev.Van_Arsdall_Ԁ(1986)475U.S.673.)Allthreeofthesecases %0!$ standforthepropositionthatevidencerulesthatsignificantlyundermine &"% theeffectivenessofcrossexaminationoffendtheSixthAmendment,even m'#& thoughthewitnesshasbeenquestionedinopencourt.>;݌Y(#' ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  D  .3  0 4!4!  #X(XXX(w#Peoplev.Butler(2005)127_Cal.App_.4th49,reviewdenied.TheSecond 1*%) Districtheldthatawitnesswhodeniesthathemadeapriorhearsay +&* statementisstillavailableforcrossexamination,andthusthestatement  ,'+ cancomein.X(XXX(>;݌,(, ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  E  .3  0 4!4!  InPeoplev._Angulo_Ԁ(2005)129_Cal.App_.4th303,theFourthDistrictheld Q thatinan_SVP_Ԁproceeding,thedefendanthadanopportunitytocross = examineanexpertregardingareportinthecriminalproceedings(in ) Arkansas),andhecouldhavedeposedtheexpertundertheCivil  DiscoveryAct.>;H݌  ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  F  .3  0 4!4!  ThisthreadofCrawfordintersectswithanotherlineofSixthAmendment  t caselaw!the_Bruton_Ԅ_Aranda_lineofcases.(_Bruton_Ԁv.U.S.(1968)391  ` U.S.123;Peoplev._Aranda_Ԁ(1965)63Cal.2d518.)The_Bruton_Ԅ_Aranda_  L  rulemakesinadmissibleagainsttheotherdefendantstheoutofcourt  8  statementofanontestifyingcodefendantinajointtrialoftwoormore $  defendants.However,theruleprovidesfurtherthattheSixthAmendment u  isnotapplicableinsuchasituationifthecodefendantwhomadethe a  confessiontestifiesandissubjecttocrossexamination.Thisistrue M  whetherthecodefendantadmitsordeniestheconfession.(Nelsonv. 9  _ONeil_Ԁ(1971)402U.S.622;Peoplev.Boyd(1990)222_Cal.App_.3d541). % Crawfordappearstobeconsistentwith_Bruton_Ԅ_Aranda_Ԁ!bothintermsof  whatitprohibitsandwhatitpermits.Whethertheadmissionofaco  defendantsstatementisviewedasviolating_Bruton_Ԅ_Aranda_orCrawford,  alimitinginstructionwillnotcuretheerror.(Peoplev.Song(2004)124 p _Cal.App_.4th973,982983.)>;݌\ ! ! Ќ  "<3"  <32  XV  .3  0 4   CrawfordisnotapplicableinproceedingsinwhichtheSixthAmendment 4 doesnotapply. <3݌ 4!4! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  ProbationRevocationHearings>;,݌] ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  Traditionally,probationrevocationhearingsarenotviewedas 5 beingpartofacriminalprosecution.Thus,thefullrangeofSixth ! Amendmentprotectionsdonotapplyatarevocationproceeding.   (_Morrisey_Ԁv.Brewer(1972)408U.S.471;_Gagnon_Ԁv._Scarpelli_   (1973)411U.S.778.)?'݌!  ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  However,thelossoflibertyatsuchaproceedingisaserious #X" deprivationrequiringthattheprobationerbeaccordeddueprocess $D # (_Gagnon_,supraatp.781.)Thisdueprocessguaranteerequires %0!$ thatthedefendantgenerallybegiventheright toconfrontand &"% crossexaminewitnesses(unlessthehearingofficerspecifically m'#& findsgoodcausefornotallowingconfrontation.)(Id.atp.786.) Y(#' Thus,adefendantataprobationrevocationhearinghasarightto E)$( confrontation,albeitonenotascompleteastheoneguaranteedat 1*%) trialbytheSixthAmendment.?݌+&* ! ! Ќ  "@ir"  @ir0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  a  .3  0< ! !  InpreCrawfordcases,theCaliforniaSupremeCourts ,(, discussionofthevaluesprotectedbydueprocessbearsa e strikingresemblancetothosevaluesarticulatedin Q Crawfordasbeingattheheartofthehistoricmeaningof = theSixthAmendment.(Seee.g.,Peoplev._Winson_Ԁ(1981) ) 29Cal.3d711,713714;Peoplev._Arreola_Ԁ(1994)74Cal.  4th1144,1148.)In_Winson_,thecourtobservedthatthe   needforconfrontationisparticularlyimportantwherethe   evidenceistestimonialbecauseoftheopportunityfor  t observationofthewitnesssdemeanor.(29Cal.3datp.  ` 717[thestatemaynotintroduceatranscriptofawitnesss  L  preliminaryhearingtestimonyatarevocationhearing  8  withoutashowingofunavailabilityorothergoodcause]. $  Butsee,Peoplev._Maki_Ԁ(1985)39Cal.3d707[upholding u  theadmissibilityataprobationrevocationhearingof a  documentaryhearsayevidence!acarrentalinvoiceanda M  hotelreceipt].)@ir݌9 <!<! Ќ  "@ir"  @irH0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !2  b  .3  0< ! !  However,postCrawford,inPeoplev.Johnson(2004)121  _Cal.App_.4th1409,theFirstDistricthasheldCrawford  simplyhasnoapplicationtoaprobationrevocationhearing  becausetheSixthAmendmentdoesnotcontrolsuch p hearings.Thus,itfoundnoerrorintheadmissionofa \ laboratoryreportshowingthedefendanttohavepossessed H rockcocaine.Accord,#X(XXX(#UnitedStatesv.Hall(9thCir.2005) 4 419F.3d980;UnitedStatesv.Rondeau(1stCir.2005)   2005_U.S.App.LEXIS_Ԁ25224[citingagreementamong q  severalcircuits].)X(XXX(@irHu݌]<!<! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  PreliminaryHearings>;݌5 ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  Muchofthehearsayusedatpreliminaryhearingsiscertainly    testimonialwithinthemeaningofCrawford.Thoughthe   SupremeCourthasfrequentlydescribedtheconfrontationclauseas !  a trialright(Barberv.Page(1968)390U.S.719;Pennsylvania "l! v.Ritchie(1987)480U.S.39),ithasneverexplicitlyheldtheSixth #X" Amendmentdoesnotapplytopreliminaryhearings.TheCourt $D # cameclosetosoholdinginBarber.Sinceitwasnotessentialto %0!$ theoutcome,thesuggestionwasdicta.?݌&"% ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?) 0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasexpresslyheldthattheSixth Y(#' Amendmentconfrontationclausedoesnotapplytotheprelim_inary_ E)$( hearing.(Whitmanv.SuperiorCourt(1991)54Cal.3d1063.)?) V ݌1*%) ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;& 0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  SuppressionMotions:Peoplev.Martinez(2005)132_Cal.App_.4th233,  ,'+ 242:TheFourthDistrictheldthatCrawforddoesnotapplytosuppression ,(, motions,because,unlikeatrialinwhichthetruthissought,througha e suppressionmotion, theaccusedseekstoavoidthetruth.(Seealso, Q Peoplev.Gomez(2004)117_Cal.App_.4th531[Harvey/Maddenhearsay = didnotimplicatethe6thAmendment].)>;& S ݌) ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;N0 4 2  D  .3  0 4!4!  _SVP_ԀCommitments>;N{݌  ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?[0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  Peoplev._Angulo_Ԁ(2005)129_Cal.App_.4th303:TheFourthDistrict  t heldthatthereisno6thAmendmentrightin_SVP_Ԁproceedings,  ` observingthatCommonwealthv.Given(2004)441Mass.741  L  [808N.E.2d788]hasheldthatCrawforddidnotapplyto  8  Massachusettssexoffendercivilcommitmentproceedings.?[݌$  ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?>0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  Peoplev.Whitney(2005)129_Cal.App_.4th1287:TheFifth a  District,assumingCrawfordapplied,heldthatintroductionofthe M  defendantsadmissionsdidnotviolatethe6thAmendment.The 9  doctorswhopreparedthereportstestified.?>k݌% ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  3  .3  0 ! !  #X(XXX(G#Cartyv.Nelson(9thCir.2005)2005_U.S.App.LEXIS_Ԁ27407[there  isno6thrightinspecialcivilproceedinganddocumentary  evidencedidnotviolate14thA.,thoughCrawfordnotmentioned]X(XXX(.?݌p ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;0 4 2  E  .3  0 4!4!  Sentencing!proofofpriorconvictions>;݌H ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  1  .3  0 ! !  _Blakely_/_Apprendi_rulesaysthe6thA.appliestoanyelementother   thanapriorconviction.?݌q  ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?v0 4 0 4!4!2  2  .3  0 ! !  #X(XXX(b#Shepardv.UnitedStates(2005)544U.S.򀀀[161_L.Ed_.2d205, I 125_S.Ct_.1254,1257,2005U.S.LEXIS2205]X(XXX(Ԁsays,without 5 mentioningCrawford,thatthenatureofthepriormayonlybe ! provenbyreferencetochargingdocuments.?v݌  ! ! Ќ  "?"  ?0 4 0 4!4!2  3  .3  0 ! !  InPeoplev.Gonzales(2005)131_Cal.App_.4th767,reviewdenied, !  theFourthDistrictheldthatneitherCrawfordnorShepardbarred "l! theuseofpreliminaryhearingtestimonytoproveaprior #X" conviction,becauseunderReednowitnesscouldtestifyandthe $D # defendanthadanopportunitytocrossexamineatthepreliminary %0!$ hearing.?H݌&"% ! ! Ќ  ">;"  #X(XXX(#>;0 4 2  F  .3  0 4!4!  Hearingonapreliminaryfact:Peoplev.Smith(2003)30Cal.4th581, Y(#' anotherpreCrawfordcase,examiningtheadmissibilityofpreliminary E)$( hearingtestimonyofanunavailablewitnessunderastandardsimilarto 1*%) thatstatedbyCrawfordasapplicabletoconfrontationchallenges,heldthat +&* hearsaycouldbeusedtoestablishunavailabilitywithoutimplicatingthe  ,'+ 6thAmendment,becauseitwasreasonablefortheprosecutortorelyon ,(, thestatementinexercisingduediligence.X(XXX(>;E ݌e ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;|#0 4 2  G  .3  0 4!4!  JuvenileCases:#X(XXX(##Crawforddoesnotapplyinjuveniledependencycases. = (InreAprilC.(2005)131_Cal.App_.4th599,reviewdenied.)X(XXX(>;|##݌) ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;e%0 4 2  H  .3  0 4!4!  Civilsummaryjudgment:Crawforddoesnotapply(_Kulshretha_Ԁv.First   UnionCommercialCorp.(2004)33Cal.4th601.)>;e%%݌  ! ! Ќ  "<3"  <3&2  XVI  .3  0 4   Retroactivity <3&!'݌ `4!4! Ќ  ">;"  >;'0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  Crawfordiscertainlyapplicabletoallcases,stateorfederal,pendingon  8  directreviewornotyetfinalonthedateofitsdecision.(Griffithv. $  Kentucky(1987)479U.S.314.)Therealquestioniswhetheritcanbe u  appliedretroactivelytocaseswithfinaljudgments.>;''݌a  ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;*0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  InPeoplev.Combs,supra,34Cal.4thatp.842,theCaliforniaSupreme 9  CourtreservedjudgmentonthisissuewhilequotingJusticeRehnquists % characterizationofCrawfordassettingfortha newrule.(Crawford,  supra,atp.69,concur.opinionofRehnquist,J.)Further,in_In_Ԁre  _Sakarias_Ԁ(2005)35Cal.4th140,155,fn.2,withoutanalysis,theCourt  simplyobservedthattheCrawfordrulehadnotbeenannouncedatthe p timeofthepetitionerstrialanditappliedRoberts.TheFourthDistrict, \ DivisionOnehasheldthatCrawfordfallswithin_Teague_Ԁv.Lane(1989) H 489U.S.288[anewrulethat breaksnewgroundorimposesanew 4 obligationontheStatesortheFederalGovernmentisnot,withcertain   exceptions,retroactivelyapplicable],anditisnotretroactive.(Inre q  Moore(2005)133_Cal.App_.4th68,77.)>;*4*݌] ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;/0 4 2  C  .3  0 4!4!  Itisdifficulttoarguethatarulethathasbeendescribedascreating a 5 paradigmshiftinconfrontationclauseanalysis(Peoplev.Cage,supra, ! 120_Cal.App_.4th770,reviewgranted)isnotanewruleunder_Teague_.   Indeed,mostfederalcircuitshaveconcludedthatitdidannounceanew   rule.(See,_Bockting_Ԁv.Bayer(9thCir.2005)399F.3d1010,1014-21,as !  amended408F.3d1127;Brownv._Uphoff_(10thCir.2004)381F.3d "l! 1219,1227;Mungov.Duncan(2ndCir.2004)393F.3d327,336;_Dorchy_ #X" v.Jones(6thCir.2005)398F.3d783,788;_Murillo_Ԁv.Frank(7thCir. $D # 2005)402F.3d786,789-791.Seealso,Lavev._Dretke_Ԁ(5thCir.2005) %0!$ 416F.3d372,grantinga_COA_Ԁonthispoint];_Corey_Ԁv.U.S.(D.Maine &"% 2005)2005_U.S.Dist.LEXIS_Ԁ19845,following_Murillo_.)>;//݌m'#& ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;60 4 2  D  .3  0 4!4!  However,JusticeScaliadidgooutofhiswaytoargueatlengththat Our E)$( caselawhasbeenlargelyconsistentwiththeprinciplesdrivingthe 1*%) Crawforddecision.(Crawford,supraatp.57.)Infact,allofSectionIV +&* oftheopinionisdedicatedtotheargumentthatRobertswasthedeparture  ,'+ notCrawford.In_Bockting_,supra,oneNinthCircuitjudgeconcurredina ,(, holdingthatCrawfordisretroactive,reasoningthatitisnotanewruleand e neednotbeputthroughthe _Summerlin_strainer.(See,_Bockting_Ԁv.Bayer, Q supra,399F.3datpp.10221023,concur.opinionof_Noonan_,J.)>;6J6݌= ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;:0 4 2  E  .3  0 4!4!  AnalternativeisarguingthatCrawfordestablishesa watershedruleof  criminalprocedure,therebycomingwithinoneofthetwoexceptionsto   _Teague_snonretroactivityrule(_Teague_,supra,489U.S.atp.311).(See,   _Bockting_Ԁv.Bayer,supra,399F.3datpp.1014-1021,concur.opinionof  t _McKeown_,J.)However,indissentingfromthedenialofamotionfor  ` rehearingenbancin_Bockting_,andjoinedby8membersofthebench,  L  Judge_OScannlain_Ԁconcluded, _Bockting_conflictswiththedecisionof  8  everyothercircuittohaveconsideredtheretroactivityofCrawford;...it $  conflictswithourowndecisionin_Hiracheta_[v.AttorneyGeneral,an u  unpublishedMemorandumopinionat105Fed._Appx_.937];and,...itwas a  wronglydecided.(_Bockting_Ԁv.Bayer(9thCir.2005)418F.3d1055, M  1061,diss.opinionof_OScannlain_,J.)Mostfederalcircuitsfindingthat 9  Crawfordannouncedanewrulehavenotfoundittobea watershedrule % under_Teague_.>;::݌ ! ! Ќ  ">;"  >;1B0 4 2  F  .3  0 4!4!  Asecondbartoretroactivityinfederalcourtmaybetheindependentnon  retroactivityruleimposedby_AEDPA_Ԁin2254(d)(1).>;1B^B݌p ! ! Ќ  #X(XXX(%#